SEE ALSO  :  French farmers say wind turbines and solar panels have killed hundreds of their cows

Filmed on 5th November 2018 at the PHIRE Conference, London.

SOURCE ARTICLE : RTE.ie

Author – Professor Tom Butler, University College Cork

Opinion: a huge body of research provides clear evidence of the significant threats to children’s health from wifi routers and cellular masts

The past 15 years have seen the proliferation of near-field microwave radio frequency radiation devices in the home, school and society. But far-field radio frequency radiation from wifi routers and 2G, 3G, 4G and 5G cellular telecommunications antennae also pose significant risks. The cumulative body of research, which includes scientific findings from laboratory experiments and epidemiological studies, provides clear evidence of the threats to children’s health and well-being. In light of this, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) issued specific recommendations to reduce wireless and cell phone exposure to children in order to mitigate the risk of ill-health.

But this may not be sufficient given the findings of several recent studies. The telecommunications industry and the Big Tech sector, related industry associations, regulators on both sides of the Atlantic, and standards bodies such as the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), and the International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), focus exclusively on providing safety standards for the thermal effects of RFR. They effectively ignore or deny the existence of non-thermal effects.

In 1973, the US Naval Medical Research Institute published a bibliography of 2,311 scientific papers on the thermal and non-thermal biological effects of radio frequency radiation. The body of scientific evidence has grown exponentially since. It is interesting to find that independent scientific studies are two and a half times more likely to find evidence of biological effects and health risks than industry-funded studies. They also have greater scientific validity. Furthermore, Dr Henry Lai from the University of Washington reports that studies conducted between 1990 and 2017 find significant effects of health risks such as DNA damage (64%), neurological effects (72%), and oxidative stress (90%).

Thus, the weight of objective scientific evidence has always indicated significant risks to human health—these risks are magnified significantly where children are concerned. The problem is that because of the commercial and economic value of wireless technology (est. > $2 trillion) and the risk of litigation, the industry “captured” regulatory agencies,engaged in disinformation and manipulated the press and was responsible for the institutional corruption of scientists, their universities, and governments.

The net result is that humans are unknowingly exposed to health risks that governments should have prevented in the first place. The economic stakes and related health risks have risen significantly with the emergence of 5G.

Children are at greater risk of both thermal effects and non-thermal effects as their bodies are immature and growing.

In 2018, the criterion of causation where brain and heart tumours are concerned, was clearly and unambiguously met when the final report of a 10-year $30m comprehensive study by the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences’ National Toxicology Program (NTP) was released. This study confirmed that RFR from Smartphones caused cancer in animals and this is just the latest in a long line of experimental research studies to confirm this link. That is the “clear evidence” that the EU’s Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks(SCENIHR) had called for in its 2015 Opinion “to clarify the remaining uncertainties.”

Risk is defined in terms of threats, vulnerabilities and impact. It is easy to understand why smoking, asbestos and other carcinogens are considered Class 1 carcinogenic threats. In spite of the forces aligned against the non-thermal view, WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified radio frequency radiation as a Class 2B carcinogen, alongside lead, for example. Following the release of NTP study findings on nearfield radio frequency radiation in 2018, and that of the Ramazzini Institute study on far-field radio frequency radiation also in 2018, scientists are calling for the IARC to re-categorize radio frequency radiation as a Class 1 carcinogen.

But despite increasing evidence that radio frequency radiation is as toxic as lead or tobacco smoke, regulators have not budged from the thermal view. While health and safety regulations have long banned lead from children’s toys and furniture, even from digital devices, children widely use radio frequency radiation-enabled digital devices, which are more than possible carcinogens. This seems wholly illogical.

How then are children extremely vulnerable to radio frequency radiation? Electromagnetic fields (EMF) such as radio frequency radiation are an energy source and the thermal mechanism within results in the heating of human flesh, dependent on the power of the source and the distance from it. Given that most RFR devices operate at levels in breach of existing standards and devices are generally operated by children in breach of the health and safety provisions, children are at greater risk of both thermal effects and non-thermal effects, especially as their bodies are immature and growing.

The human body is bioelectromagnetic in form and function, as electrical and electromagnetic fields are produced by living cells and tissues. If, for example, a person presents with neurological or cardiac issues to a doctor, then the physician will conduct an electroencephalogram (EEG) or an electrocardiogram (ECG) for an initial diagnosis. Thus, the human brain and heart are clearly electrosensitive organs due to the fact that cells are electrochemical in function.

There is a significant body of scientific research which demonstrates causality in non-thermal radio frequency radiation effects, in that exposure to relatively low-levels of radio frequency radiation from near-and far-fields trigger calcium ion efflux/influx, via voltage-gated calcium channel (VGCC) activation. This non-thermal effect or mechanism in turn leads to the production of reactive oxygen species in cells and a reduction in antioxidants, such as melatonin.

As is always the case with adult misconduct, the losers are the current generation of children

Usually, this imbalance results in an increase in the probability that a person will develop cancers and other chronic conditions and this explains the findings of extant scientific experiments and epidemiological studies. Specifically, such research demonstrates the presence of non-thermal-related mechanisms that increase the risks of DNA strand breaks, chromosome aberrations, immune system malfunction, and impaired cardiac and neurological functioning. In terms of the latter, reported neuropsychiatric effects are sleep disturbance or insomnia, headache, depression, fatigue, dysesthesia, attention dysfunction, memory changes, dizziness, irritability, loss of appetite and body weight, restlessness and anxiety, nausea, and in extreme cases skin-burning tingling and EEG changes. Interestingly, many of these effects were identified in the 1973 report published by the US Naval Medical Research Institute.

In summary, children are at growing risk of present and future ill-health due to weak governments, captured government departments and agencies, corrupt institutions, a compliant press and unethical or ignorant academics. As with tobacco smoking and climate change, the scientific evidence has existed for some time and is growing by the year. The problem is that industry are winning the battle for hearts and minds by war-gaming academics, corrupting governments, manipulating the press, and leading the public by the nose. As is always the case with adult misconduct, the losers are the current generation of children.

Source Article : RTE.ie/Brainstorm

https://www.rte.ie/news/health/2019/0409/1041500-cancer_cases/

The number of cases of cancer could double by 2045, if current rates continue into the future, according to a new report from the National Cancer Registry.

However, it said that the overall increase could be a more modest 50% in both sexes, if recent trends, including declines, in some cancers continue.

For all cancers combined (excluding non-melanoma skin cancer), the projections are for a doubling of numbers overall to 43,000.

This means an 111% increase for males and an 80% increase for females between 2015 and 2045.

This projection assumes that average rates of cancer during 2011-2015 apply in the future and that changes in numbers of cases are due only to changes in population size and age.

Professor Kerri Clough-Gorr, Director of the National Cancer Registry and Professor of Cancer Epidemiology at University College Cork, said that population growth and ageing will result in substantial increases in numbers of cancers diagnosed in Ireland over the coming decades, with resultant increases in the demands on cancer healthcare services.

Speaking on RTÉ’s Morning Ireland, Professor Clough-Gorr  said that lung cancer continues to be a “cancer of concern”.

Breast cancer cases could, she said, see increases of up to 63% by 2045.

There are also are large projected increases in liver and gallbladder cancers.

“We need to be looking at what are the underlying risk factors and looking at ways to screen and put in place public health measures for cancers that are projected to be problematic over the next couple of decades,” said Professor Clough-Gorr.

“And because we capture the complete population picture, this information should be used to guide policy and planning into the future.”

This is the fourth set of projections produced by the NCR following on from reports in 2006, 2008 and 2014, aimed at ensuring that up to date estimates are available to allow for future planning of cancer services in Ireland.

In response to the NCR report, Irish Cancer Society chief executive Averil Power said that existing cancer services were buckling under current pressure and that the Government needed to make investment now to meet the huge surge in demand of the future.

The society said the NCRI report showed that demand for surgery will increase by almost 8,000 patients a year, demand for radiotherapy will increase by 5,500 patients a year and demand for chemotherapy will increase by 4,500 patients a year.

Speaking on RTÉ’s Drivetime, Ms Power said it was a wake up call for the Government who must take steps now to make sure we have capacity to cater for a greater number of cancer patients.

She also said that more people than ever are surviving cancer, which creates further challenges.

Ms Power said the Government must plan to provide for the emotional, physical and financial needs of cancer survivors.

She added that the figures are a projection and it is within everyone’s own power to reduce their cancer risk.

Ms Power said this requires Government investment in cancer prevention in order to help people to have better health behaviours.

5G: Vaud (Switzerland) Adopts Resolution for a Moratorium [UPDATE: Geneva too]

SOURCE ARTICLE : takebackyourpower

After several twists, the Vaud Cantonal Parliament (Grand Council Vaudois) adopted Tuesday a resolution calling for a moratorium on 5G antennas. The measure should apply until it receives the report of the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment on this new technology.

After a long debate, obfuscated by the intervention of the Swiss State Councellor Jacqueline de Quattro, the Vaud Parliamentary representatives said “yes” to the resolution tabled by the Environmentalist “Green” Party Raphael Mahaim by 95 votes for the motion against 9 against it and 25 abstentions. However, they amended the text by establishing a clear timeframe.  … READ FULL ARTICLE HERE

Canton of Geneva: preliminary ban on the construction of 5G antennae

SOURCE ARTICLE : EMFSA.CO.ZA

The Canton of Geneva has introduced a preliminary ban on the construction of 5G antennae, reported SRF.ch. The cantonal parliament first requires investigations into possible health implications. The decision on the moratorium came in at 58 votes against 28.

The prohibition will only be lifted again if independent scientific findings are available on the possible health effects of 5G. The Geneva government will now turn to the World Health Organisation (WHO) and request independent studies.

In Geneva’s Grand Council, it was argued that many mobile operators would explain to consumers that 5G is the same as LTE. However, the environment is increasingly burdened by electromagnetic waves and nobody knows about the health effects. The cantonal parliament also wants to know about the effects on animals.

By the end of the year, Swisscom plans to cover more than 90 percent of Switzerland with a 5G network. Sunrise has been covering 150 cities and locations throughout Switzerland since the beginning of April. With the award of the 5G licences at the beginning of February, the discussion about the health risks of mobile radiation in Switzerland has been resumed.  READ FULL ARTICLE HERE

A report by the European Parliament titled: 5G Deployment – State of Play in Europe, USA and Asia, published in April 2019, addresses  health concerns.

The report states:

“Significant concern is emerging over the possible impact on health and safety arising from potentially much higher exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation arising from 5G. Increased exposure may result not only from the use of much higher frequencies in 5G but also from the potential for the aggregation of different signals, their dynamic nature, and the complex interference effects that may result, especially in dense urban areas.

The 5G radio emission fields are quite different to those of previous generations because of their complex beamformed transmissions in both directions – from base station to handset and for the return. Although fields are highly focused by beams, they vary rapidly with time and movement and so are unpredictable, as the signal levels and patterns interact as a closed loop system. This has yet to be mapped reliably for real situations, outside the laboratory.

While the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) issues guidelines for limiting exposure to electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields (EMF), and EU member states are subject to Council Recommendation 1999/519/EC which follows ICNIRP guidelines, the problem is that currently it is not possible to accurately simulate or measure 5G emissions in the real world.”

SOURCE ARTICLE: THE BRUSSELS TIMES   1st April 2019

SOURCE ARTICLE : PHYSICIANS FOR SAFE TECHNOLOGY

25th March 2019

After 4 students and 3 teachers were diagnosed with cancer within a 3-year period, Sprint has finally agreed to remove a cell tower at a Ripon, California school. While it is exceedingly difficult to identify the cause of a cancer cluster, parents and students in the San Joaquin County school are convinced there is one and it is caused by the campus cell tower. They are not only protesting but several have abandoned the small school which now features 4 rare cancers in students -2 brain tumors, one kidney cancer and one liver cancer. Investigations of not only cell tower radiation but also water quality have been initiated. After 200 parents stormed the school board meeting, school officials were prompted to ask for the cell tower to be removed at the K-8 school. Sprint has agreed to do so.

Parents Opposed the Cell Tower Before it was Placed

The cell tower was placed at Weston Elementary School 10 years ago and a group of parents opposed the cell tower construction before it was erected, citing health concerns. According to news reports, they have another 15 years left on the 25-year lease with a rental fee of about $2,000 per month paid to the school. A Go Petition to have the cell tower removed was initiated in 2017 after 2 children in the school developed cancer.

Radiofrequency Levels Are Within FCC Guidelines

Officials have maintained that the radiofrequency radiation levels were below the federal standard when measured and they are in compliance. Questions remain about the safety of cell towers, as well as the current standards, which many experts state are not protective of human or environmental health. Current FCC regulations for human exposure are based on heating of tissues and short term exposures, not harmful biological effects demonstrated at much lower levels in the scientific literature.

Even though the cause of any particular cancer may never be determined is there scientific evidence that removing the cell tower and taking this precautionary approach is warranted?

Is Cell Tower Radiation Toxic?

Cell towers as well as Wi-Fi create continuous emissions of pulsed microwave radiation. Microwave ovens which use similar radiofrequencies at higher power cook by heat, however, at lower power adverse biological effects have been demonstrated in scientific studies without heating or burning the tissue. One mechanism of toxicity that has been clearly shown is oxidative damage in 93 of 100 studies (Yakymenko 2016). Wireless radiation passes through and is absorbed in the body and organs and thus can potentially cause broad harm to cellular structures and internal organs. Damage from RFR is cumulative as it is with ionizing radiation and other toxic exposures. It is also non-linear in its effects due to individual variation in genetics, nutrition and health.

Cell Towers and Cancer

In 2011 IARC listed radiofrequency radiation (RFR) as a possible carcinogen. Scientists have argued that considering the current level of published research on brain tumors and radio frequency radiation that RFR should be listed as a Class 1 Known Carcinogen. The National Toxicology Program (NTP) Study on Cancer and Cell Phones announced their findings in 2018, after 10 years of research on RFR, and showed DNA damage (a precursor to cancer) and clear evidence of carcinogenicity of wireless radiation emissions. They demonstrated in carefully conducted studies a significant increase in tumors of internal organs including the heart, brain and adrenal medulla (which sits just above the kidney). Another worrisome finding from the NTP was the development of aging of the heart in the exposed cohort.

Distance from Cell Towers and Cancer Rates

A study by Wolf and Wolf (2004) showed a significant increase in cancer in those living within 350 feet of a cell tower. Eger (2004) found an increase in new cancer cases within a 10-year period if residents lived within 400 meters of a cell tower. They also found that within 5 years of operation of the transmitting base station the relative risk of cancer development tripled in residents near the cell tower compared to resident living outside the area. Dode (2011) performed a 10-year study (1996-2006) examining the distance from cell towers and cancer clusters. He and his colleagues found a significant increase in cancers in those living within 500 meters of the cell tower. They noted, “The largest density power was 40.78 μW/cm2, and the smallest was 0.04 μW/cm2.” The current guidelines are about 1000 μW/cm2.

They conclude “Measured values stay below Brazilian Federal Law limits that are the same of ICNIRP. The human exposure pattern guidelines are inadequate. More restrictive limits must be adopted urgently.”

Cell Towers, Illness and Cognitive Decline in Students

Cancer is not the only worry with cell towers. The majority of studies on cell towers internationally have shown adverse effects with cell towers in close proximity to residencies and schools. Findings include symptoms of dizziness, headaches, nausea, memory loss, and fatigue in those living within about 400 feet of a cell tower. These are symptoms of “microwave illness” reported by NASA in servicemen working on radar systems. A recent study conducted over 2 years looking at the effects of cell towers near two schools by Meo (2018) demonstrated cognitive dysfunction in students closest to the higher power cell tower.

Cell Towers and Blood Cell Abnormalities

There is also a recent study showing blood abnormalities in those living nearest to cell towers (Zothansiama 2017). DNA and lipid abnormalities were seen along with reduction in internal antioxidants which provide protection from pollutants.

Cell Towers, Wi Fi, Laptops and Cell Phones All Emit RFR

Cell towers are not the only source of potentially harmful radiofrequency radiation in schools. Most schools today have converted from the original wired classrooms to wireless with the use of wireless white boards, wireless computers and with assignments on the cell phones. Wi Fi routers and wireless electronics in the classroom bring this radiation in much closer proximity to students and levels can be higher than near cell towers. The increase in RF exposure in children is a huge concern with cell towers adding to RF cumulative exposures. Schools in Germany, Austria and France as well as many private schools in the U.S. have gone back to hardwired connections for health reasons and to reduce exposure.

Cell Towers Banned in the Los Angeles Unified School District and Removed in Chatsworth

The Los Angeles City Board of Education banned cell towers on schools in 2000, citing health and safety concerns of the students. The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD Resolution states:

• Whereas, Recent studies suggest there is evidence that radio-frequency radiation may produce “health effects” at “very low field” intensities;
• Whereas, The scientific community and most health officials agree that more research is needed to provide a definitive answer as to the effects of extremely low frequency electromagnetic and radio- frequency radiation on our health and recommend the prudent avoidance of equipment which generates non-ionizing radiation; now, therefore, be it
• Resolved, further, That the Board of Education oppose the future placement of cellular telecommunications towers on or immediately adjacent to school property currently owned by the District until appropriate regulatory standards are adopted.

In Chatsworth, on Human Rights Day, parents protested the reinstallation of a cell tower on their local school and occupied the field until the mast was removed. Angry parents took a stand and were ready to camp out on the cell tower site. The school governing board and principal were contacted and according to the report some were not aware of the reinstallation. Parents watched and waited as heavy machinery slowly lowered the mast and drove it away.

Cell Towers and the Telecommunications Act

Cell towers are regulated by the 1996 Telecommunications Act (TCA). Schools may ban cell towers however municipalities may not according to the TCA. The law states that a cell tower cannot be denied on the basis of health in Section 704 as follows, “`(iv) No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions.”

The Collaborative for High Performing Schools

The Collaborative for High Performing Schools developed criteria and policies for schools to improve student performance through improved building design. This includes Best Practices for Low EMF which was adopted in 2014. This well researched and well written policy includes recommendations to reduce wireless radiofrequency radiation in schools as follows:

• Provide wired Local Area Networks (LAN) throughout the school
• Disable wireless transmitters on all Wi Fi enabled devices
• Laptops and notebooks have ethernet port and switch to disable wireless
• Keep computers and tablets away from the body
• Hardwire all phones
• Prohibit cell phones and other personal wireless devices in the classroom
• Prohibit cell phone towers and base stations on school buildings or property
• Run conduits for future fiberoptic connections
• California Brain Tumor Association Agrees with Cell Tower Removal

Ellie Marks, Founder and Executive Director of the California Brain Tumor Association, agrees with the decision to move the cell tower away from the school. She states, “Our reading of the situation is that science has established enough proof of harm that regulations should be updated now and appropriate warnings issued. The “jury” actually is back and it has given its guilty verdict.” She feels the tower “should be turned off for now even before it is moved, to protect the students, teachers, staff and administrators.” Adding a ban on further cell towers within the school district, as the LAUSD has done, seems prudent as well.

See Also

PST Cell Towers Health Effects Scientific Literature – https://mdsafetech.org/cell-tower-health-effects/
PST Cellular Mechanisms of RFR Oxidation – https://mdsafetech.org/cellular-mechanisms-oxidation/
PST Cancer and Radiofrequency Radiation – https://mdsafetech.org/cancer/
PST NTP Study on Cell Phones and Cancer – https://mdsafetech.org/ntp-study-2016/
PST Wi Fi in Schools – https://mdsafetech.org/wi-fi-in-schools-2/
PST Military and Government Reports – https://mdsafetech.org/science/military-studies-and-compendiums/
Safer EMR Cell Tower Health Effects – https://www.saferemr.com/2015/04/cell-tower-health-effects.html
Environmental Health Trust Wi-Fi in Schools, Health Risks and Solutions –https://ehtrust.org/key-issues/cell-phoneswireless/wifi-in-schools/

READ FULL ARTICLE HERE

RELATED ARTICLE – SOUTH AFRICA 

March 2019  – Cellphone mast removed from Chatsworth school

SOURCE ARTICLE: DOWN TO EARTH INDIA By Akshit Sangomla

27 March 2019

Paul Heroux, professor of toxicology and health effects of electromagnetism at Department of Surgery, McGill University Health Centre, Canada, speaks with Down To Earth about how adoption of 5G will be detrimental towards people’s health.

Q: What are the primary health impacts of using 5G mobile network and is there enough scientific evidence to prove that these impacts will take place?

All artificial electromagnetic radiation is a problem because biological systems are not adapted to it. Since exposure has increased progressively and started at a time when disease detection was primitive, those impacts went largely unnoticed. The health evidence has been there, but ignored for decades. 5G will promote cell phone use and therefore human exposures to phones and base stations. The higher frequencies will concentrate the radiation in a smaller portion of the human body because of smaller penetration depth. These frequencies also need more intensity to allow penetration through obstacles. The exposures will be more concentrated over time because of the beam-forming (5-10°) that is specific to 5G. On the specific issue of cancer, all major animal studies, including Chou (1992), Repacholi (1997) and NTP-Ramzzini (2019) confirm carcinogenic action of electromagnetic radiation (EMR).

Q: Countries like UK, US and even India are pushing for faster adoption of 5G? Have the concerns around health impacts been resolved?

Industry has performed no health studies on 5G. They do not need to as they have a stranglehold on legislation that allows them to arbitrarily place base stations where they went on streets close to homes and people have no recourse whatsoever. Dominique Bellepomme, an oncologist in Paris, calls this a “crime against humanity”. As usual, to push adoption of the next update, industry represents that 5G is a revolution, while in fact it is only an expansion of wireless. Most of the applications presented to promote it are “vapourware”, things that either already exist or will never see implementation. Self-driving cars can be designed without 5G. The internet of things is an invasion to privacy primarily optimised for spying and should be framed with restrictions that protect private information and the right not to be irradiated by EMR.

Q: In a completely 5G-connected world how severe could these impacts be?

There would be impacts on cancer rates, on neurological diseases, including electrical hypersensitivity (EHS), fertility and diabetes. Children are particularly vulnerable.

Q: What is the current stand of the European Union and other global bodies about the health consequences of 5G?

The International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France, warned in 2002 and 2011 about the connection between EMR and cancer. Many other international and public bodies are under the direct influence of industries. Since this question involves interdisciplinary science, it has been possible for industry specialists to infiltrate many organisations, who also get generous donations from large tech corporations. The convenience of wireless has created a huge financial base and a wide public audience that has been driven to believe by publicity and simplistic science that there are no health implications to EMR.

READ MORE HERE

SOURCE ARTICLE: Pandora-Foundation.eu

On October 28, 2018, Microwave News published a report on two research teams from UK, in which each had observed a rise in glioblastoma in England between 1995 and 2014. Glioblastomas are the most malignant brain tumours leading to death in nearly 100% of the cases shortly after detection (1).

While incidence and location of the brain tumours were comparable in both studies, the conclusions about the pathogenesis of the tumours were different. Philips et al. (2) see the cause for the rise in glioblastoma in the increasing use of mobile phones, while de Vocht (3) is of the opinion that such an  assumption can be excluded with a high probability. This dispute is in some way evocative of the controversy between the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP). In the $ 30-million study, the NTP detected malignant schwannoma in the heart and glioblastoma in the brain of male rats after exposure to mobile phone radiation for a period of two years. ICNIRP, a non-governmental organization under the undisclosed control of the telecommunication industry, which is responsible for the establishment of safety limits for non-ionizing radiation in Europe and beyond, tried to play down the significance of the NTP findings by casting doubts on their reliability. While ICNIRP has totally ignored any progress of research since the turn of the century (4), de Vocht based his findings on what he calls “synthetic counterfactuals”, which sounds – rightly or wrongly – more like “alternative facts”.

Glioblastomas Have Doubled in Number in England
Since Mobile Phones Were Introduced in 1995.
Pandora Foundation for independent research
Franz Adlkofer   READ THE FULL REPORT